quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
If it dissapears FROM MY MAILBOX, it's easy to file a claim? bull****.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
If DC was only good for sending/not sending issues, then the receipt of first class mail provides EXACTLY the same information in case of a dispute, since the zipcode and city/state/country of destination are printed on the receipt. But that's not why DC exists, is it? DC gos beyond that, providing CONFIRMATION OF DELIVERY. As I find myself repeating too many times in the last day, the issue with the BTA ruling is that MOTL has expressly placed liability on the sender for a host of issues that a sending party cannot reasonably protect against. An above poster listed quite a few common problems with recipient incompetence, and I would agree with the statement that MOTL's current stance on sender liability creates far greater scamming potential than the scenarios inca has posted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Consider the reverse scenario - I send you a REAL library tomorrow, and despite my requirements of a signature confirmation AND insurance, you sign for the package, claim to never have received it, and blame the USPS for incompetence (or even better, if you live in an apartment complex, accuse the postal worker of letting someone other than you sign for the package, further muddying the waters). Now, the sender has to file a claim, prove to the USPS that the recipient is lying, wait for the USPS to investigate the issue, hope that the postal worker in question is both a reliable witness (in legal terms, i.e. no prior record, no history of lying to superiors, etc.), hope that the USPS ACTUALLY INVESTIGATES, hope the scamming recipient is incapable of providing a statement that places any kind of doubt on the sender's claim, and if the stars align and the sender wins his claim? I gets the value of my cards back.

---

For a completely lost package, the shipper files the claim (requiring a letter from the recipient stating the package was not received after 30d, or the shipper pays $7 if the recipient isn't cooperative). For a package with damaged or lost contents, either party can file the claim. I'm not able to describe postal investigation details, but I've had a claim successfully paid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
And I also get a red flag in the USPS system, making it harder to win a future insurance claim should the issue arise again.

---

I am not aware of a secret red flag system. If you have a lost shipment, and you believe you are being scammed, then don't send to that person again!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
And MOTL, as per its ruling in the BTA, still holds me responsible for the package not being received by the scammer. Are you starting to see fallacy of the position MOTL is taking on this issue? Your stance attempts to limit one type of scam while making it clear that a host of other scams are going to be successful until the scammer develops a reputation of repeat offenses.

---

Purchase insurance and protect against theft via all scams. This isn't overly complicated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Again, consider the reverse scenario. A dedicated scammer is going to get you one way or another, and the only real deterrents are the BTA and the ref rule. But for the millioth time, this issue at heart has less to do with scamming and more to do with liability in the case of incompetence.

---

Someone wasn't home as they had originally planned. How is that incompetence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Take malicious intent completely out of the situation. 2 parties agree to a trade. The sending party took steps to make sure the parcel reaches it's destination (for the love of god, inca, just clarify what MOTL deems as a "destination"), and the receiving party ends up having an unsafe shippind location. Neither party wanted to screw the other over, but the end result is that cards were lost, and someone is on the hook for the loss. MOTL is officially punishing the guy that made sure he got his end of the deal to the other guy's house. Again, take malicious intent out of it. How do you make that ruling? By what justification? Ryusei has no history of bad trading practices, and Hoosk never claimed he got an empty package.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
I'm unclear what "safe mailing address" means. If you mean a recipient has packages frequently stolen, then insurance is even more important and DC is an even worse option. I agree that card damage isn't a large concern. If I ship a package with DC and the carrier leaves it on my doorstep in the morning where my sprinkler system waters it for an hour due to high winds, who's to blame?

Not at all. It only takes one large theft to potentially wreck a collection. That said, if someone claims multiple shipments have been lost and there are multiple posts on the BTA describing problems with their address, then clearly precautions must be taken. The most logical precaution would be insuring the shipment.

Do you mean he wasn't waiting at home 24/7 for a package to be delivered? That certainly isn't a reasonable requirement for any trade. Plans change all the time. I had a trade take an extra month from someone ending up in the hospital. If I can't afford to lose something, I must protect it.

What you refer to as "distractions" are real situations I have encountered and avoided, and that I am using as specific examples to explain why insurance is clearly specified twice in the sending Policy.

If you insure your shipments, you will not have people successfully steal from you. I'm glad that you believe everyone knows that. I've had multiple scammers attempt to take thousands of dollars from me. None have been successful in any amount that was significant. The statement that "a scammer always has a way to take your property from you" is false.

Certainly. People don't trade with buildings, they trade with other people. Theft from mailboxes is a real thing, and recipients cannot be required to be at home waiting for every package to arrive. If an insured package disappears, it's easy to file an online claim. If an insured package is missing contents, file a claim. If the contents are poorly protected and damaged, file a claim.

Zeckk,
Is there something difficult or troubleshome about paying an extra $1 for insurance instead of DC (and paying less than just SigCon)? Please help me understand the objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
First of all, please take it easy on the language. If you didn't receive a package, you would inform the sender and they would file an insurance claim for the lost item. You wouldn't have the required information to file a claim on your own as you wouldn't have a package.

---

I may be wrong as it has been many many moons since I have last filed an insurance claim with the post office. As i remember, I needed documentation from the person stating they didn't get the package.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravidell:
I may be wrong as it has been many many moons since I have last filed an insurance claim with the post office. As i remember, I needed documentation from the person stating they didn't get the package.

I wonder what the post office would do if you filed an insurance claim for lost item if the DC# showed delivered. I would assume that someone would be investigated for mail fraud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
The example you use of someone being in the hospital is not the same as someone voluntarily leaving after package is already in transit shouldn't the reciever be responsible for either putting there mail on hold by simply going to USPS.com or calling there local Post Office or make arrangments for someone to be there to pick-up, you have yet to answer this question and I have asked it multiple times. I think in that type of scenerio which is what happened here the reciever should hold some liability for not taking at least a rasonable attempt to curb this package just sitting on his doorstep indefinitly to be stolen and that is precise;y why I think alot of the community thinks you made a bad ruling here.

---

Vegas,
Apologies for missing your comment. Hoosk rushed to take care of his Mom and forgot about a package. It's not something that was planned. He took responsibility for his part, and acted accordingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ravidell:
I may be wrong as it has been many many moons since I have last filed an insurance claim with the post office. As i remember, I needed documentation from the person stating they didn't get the package.

I wonder what the post office would do if you filed an insurance claim for lost item if the DC# showed delivered. I would assume that someone would be investigated for mail fraud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Vegas,
Apologies for missing your comment. Hoosk rushed to take care of his Mom and forgot about a package. It's not something that was planned. He took responsibility for his part, and acted accordingly.

The decision to buy insurance on anything is all about risk. The risk was believed to be low, so no insurance was purchased. When the risk actually occured, it became an issue, regardless of the circumstances. If the package was too valuable to be lost, then it should be insured or another agreement should have been made and documented (e.g., Hoosk responsible for no insurance).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
I'm a letter carrier Insured and DC are different things, but if an insured item was scanned delivered and you said it never was there the burden of proof would be on you to prove that, however anything insured for $200 or more requires a signature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
The example you use of someone being in the hospital is not the same as someone voluntarily leaving after package is already in transit shouldn't the reciever be responsible for either putting there mail on hold by simply going to USPS.com or calling there local Post Office or make arrangments for someone to be there to pick-up, you have yet to answer this question and I have asked it multiple times. I think in that type of scenerio which is what happened here the reciever should hold some liability for not taking at least a rasonable attempt to curb this package just sitting on his doorstep indefinitly to be stolen and that is precise;y why I think alot of the community thinks you made a bad ruling here.

---

I agree with you sir, especially since the receiver was been constantly notified by email that the package was enroute.

As I stated, since he was not at home he should have made arrangements. PO, Neighbor, friend, Main office of his complex.

I believe this is a moral issue also to with the receiver. This can be avoided if he were to honor the trade. As it is his own fault for not taking the necessary precautions to ensure the package was received or made safe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
I understand what you say about insurance but it wasn't Ryusie's fault that Hoosk left town and didn't make other arrangments I understand Hooks on his own has decided to give him partial restitution here, but according to the official ruling I saw he didn't have to do that and could have left Ryusei high and dry, which I think in this scenerio splitting the liability.

---

Correct that Ryusei was responsible as alternate arrangements were not agreed upon, and correct that Hoosk did the right thing anyway. Says a lot about the quality of his character, and of the members on this site in general!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
Also another question while I understand that MOTL can do have whatever rules it seems fit regarding trading why do you differ about DC than the general online community? Ebay, MTG salvation, and many online retailers accept DC as confirmed delivery, I understand that the item can still be stolen, misdelivered or whatever but as A mailcarrier I can tell you that is less than 1% of deliveries and most of the scenerios you have come up with against it are either extremely rare or are done by extremly dishonest people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
I agree with you sir, especially since the receiver was been constantly notified by email that the package was enroute.

As I stated, since he was not at home he should have made arrangements. PO, Neighbor, friend, Main office of his complex.

I believe this is a moral issue also to with the receiver. This can be avoided if he were to honor the trade. As it is his own fault for not taking the necessary precautions to ensure the package was received or made safe.

What does the receiver think of this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Delivery confirmation addresses the potential for Karma penalty from not sending. It doesn't protect when theft occurs.

---

I think is the the crux of the confusion for most people.

If DC doesn't protect anyone from problems that occur after the package has reached it's destination, I don't see how it avoids any penalty for not sending. Even if I can prove it arrived, but have to compensate for something that happened after it left the post office's possession, there's no avoiding any repercussions.

I fully understand the risks of online trading and the importance of proper insurance, but for someone like me who's average trades are $5 to $10, I'm willing to take the risks of having something happen on a package's way through the postal service, but without a relatively cheap way to protect myself from unethical traders who can claim that they didn't receive or that it was stolen from their mailbox or something despite DC stating that it reached it's destination, it's just not worth the risks.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Correct that Ryusei was responsible as alternate arrangements were not agreed upon, and correct that Hoosk did the right thing anyway. Says a lot about the quality of his character, and of the members on this site in general!

MOTL has a defined default Policy, based on decades of trading experience and direct exposure to the rare scenarios thought up by extremely dishonest people. I agree completely that the mail is typically very robust. My personal success rate is certainly >>99%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I think is the the crux of the confusion for most people.

If DC doesn't protect anyone from problems that occur after the package has reached it's destination, I don't see how it avoids any penalty for not sending. Even if I can prove it arrived, but have to compensate for something that happened after it left the post office's possession, there's no avoiding any repercussions.

I fully understand the risks of online trading and the importance of proper insurance, but for someone like me who's average trades are $5 to $10, I'm willing to take the risks of having something happen on a package's way through the postal service, but without a relatively cheap way to protect myself from unethical traders who can claim that they didn't receive or that it was stolen from their mailbox or something despite DC stating that it reached it's destination, it's just not worth the risks.

---

If MOTL wishes to continue requiring insurance in cases of damaged cards or empty boxes, or even high-value trades (eBay does so for items sold over $250.00, for example) that'd be fine by me. Why the difference? First, by establishing an insurance requirement, you are basically saying telling every trader here that they are liable for anything that might theoretically happen so long as they do not insure their packages. This starts creating an unreasonable burden on the all senders to insure every deal, regardless of the value. Second, there is a clear party at fault in most empty box cases: either the sender is at fault for sending an empty box, or the recipient is attempting to scam the sender, yet no proof will be sufficient in this case as it is one person's word against the other--thus, requiring insurance is fine here. In cases of damaged mail (which encompasses empty-box cases where it was the result of damage to mail), it is a clear USPS error where only insurance can cover the damage--thus, requiring insurance is fine there.

But in simple cases where someone claims not to have received, yet delivery confirmation clearly shows as received, that showing should be enough. Most people aren't scammers and have the integrity and honor not to lie about things. After all, how many empty-box cases has MOTL had, versus non-receipt cases? I believe Hooskdaddy when he says he never received the package and that something may have happened to it (stolen or otherwise), even though it shows as arrived. I also believe that, if the rule were such that delivery confirmation were enough, Hooskdaddy would not simply alter his claim to an empty-box claim just because that would allow him to not have to uphold his end of the deal.

Finally, I'm fully aware of your trading experience, especially with high value trades and purchases. In the case of establishing a default rule for a general trading site like this, however, I feel that your particular experience may actually be negatively impacting your judgment here. This is not a personal attack by any means, but rather think about it this way: Because your trading experience involves people who have attempted extremely high-value scams, over thousands (or more) of dollars, and because it involves trades and purchases of tens of thousands of dollars at once, your view is skewed towards protecting MOTL in deals of such a large values, whereas the reality is that the vast majority of deals on MOTL are likely more somewhere in between $10 and $250.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I think is the the crux of the confusion for most people.

If DC doesn't protect anyone from problems that occur after the package has reached it's destination, I don't see how it avoids any penalty for not sending. Even if I can prove it arrived, but have to compensate for something that happened after it left the post office's possession, there's no avoiding any repercussions.

I fully understand the risks of online trading and the importance of proper insurance, but for someone like me who's average trades are $5 to $10, I'm willing to take the risks of having something happen on a package's way through the postal service, but without a relatively cheap way to protect myself from unethical traders who can claim that they didn't receive or that it was stolen from their mailbox or something despite DC stating that it reached it's destination, it's just not worth the risks.

---

sorry usually dont visit any other part of the site other than the trading forums cuz thats all i do here haha

anyway, everyone should maybe relax a bit...none of ur mail got stolen yet and none of ur receivers claims no reception yet lol

i got a lot of pm's these couple of days with many encouragements from many of you, so id like to thank everybody.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vegas10:
...why arn't the rules of this site created in such a way as that being the right thing? I hope you understand I'm not asking all this to give you a hard time I think alot of people here are concernerd about what the ruling in this case means for future transactions on this site which I hace personally enjoyed trading/buying/selling on for 2 years. And as a general rule I have had good experiances with the other members and mods here, who by the way have always been helpful when I have asked them questions.

---

The sending Policy simply defines the defaults for trading responsibility. It isn't "right" to trade for a Summer Magic card cheaply from someone who doesn't realize what they have, but trading for equal monetary value isn't required in the rules. Some might argue that all trades should be monetarily "fair", but it is nearly impossible to legislate moral and ethical issues.

Don't worry about my being sensitive to any comments. This is a conversation, and the goal is to discuss all the issues and decide what changes should be made.

Just the places I was trying to avoid...

I don't give a **** though, because I will still trade to people I feel comfortable trading to. I also will not be putting insurance on any of my lowly, for funsies trades!

I say to Inca: I understand what you mean by there being a very low risk when trading after doing due diligence in checking out the other trader... I just think you sure as hell left a massively sour taste in the mouths of many.

That said... am I going anywhere? Hell no!

I'm going to march forward and do any trade that I would normally have done... because if I get ripped off... then REAL Karma can be a bitch!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Bingo. That's also the logical assumption as to why the rest of the online trading community accepts DC as proof of delivery. For most trades that are too small to warrant more expensive tracking options, DC proving delivery stops a lot of liability headaches from even happening. If a recipient knows beforehand that he's on the hook if his mail gets jacked after it leaves the mail system, you can bet your ass that he's going to take the proper precautions when it comes to securing his destination address. I'm not going to go over my opinions on this issue again, but I hope leshrac and inca realize that a significant portion of the MOTL community was operating under the assumption that DC established delivery to a destination, and I find myself lacking a reason to stay involved with a community that wouldn't make a reasonable change to adhere to an accepted online trading standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Zeckk,
The simplest solution is to trade with other traders who agree in writing to waive the need for insurance for small trades. The reason to stay involved with the site is the quality of those who trade here. I don't see any reason to change the practices that have been working for you, nor is it the intent of the site to define only one set of acceptable trading practices that cannot be changed via mutual documented agreement. MOTL has a defined default Policy that provides protection against loss, damage, and theft using insurance purchased by the only person able to do so, the sender.

---

I totally agree Inca...

A lot of people are being very stubborn on this whole issue...

Don't like that BTA-judgement policy?..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
For me (I believe PortlisX has mentioned something similar with regard to the empty-box scam, by the way), I think this is what it comes down to: I believe that it's bad policy for MOTL to require insurance on all packages to win a BTA case in which the recipient claims not to have received. Rather, I believe that it's better policy for MOTL to interpret the rule to say, or establish a rule that says that if the package has been confirmed to be delivered, then that is the end of the sender's responsibility where the recipient claims not to have receieved.

But in simple cases where someone claims not to have received, yet delivery confirmation clearly shows as received, that showing should be enough.

---

MOTL has a default Policy that governs trades where other documented and mutually agreed upon arrangements haven't been made. MOTL does not "require" or limit traders to only one way to trade. The suggestion you describe will certainly be considered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
If MOTL wishes to continue requiring insurance in cases of damaged cards or empty boxes, or even high-value trades (eBay does so for items sold over $250.00, for example) that'd be fine by me. Why the difference? First, by establishing an insurance requirement, you are basically saying telling every trader here that they are liable for anything that might theoretically happen so long as they do not insure their packages. This starts creating an unreasonable burden on the all senders to insure every deal, regardless of the value.

---

There is currently no requirement to insure shipments or to otherwise mandate how people choose to trade based on their personal level of risk. There is only a defined default responsibility on the sender to protect anything they can't afford to lose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
Second, there is a clear party at fault in most empty box cases: either the sender is at fault for sending an empty box, or the recipient is attempting to scam the sender, yet no proof will be sufficient in this case as it is one person's word against the other

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
Most people aren't scammers and have the integrity and honor not to lie about things.

---

Agreed, but traders need the most protection from the dishonest ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagbokk:
I feel that your particular experience may actually be negatively impacting your judgment here. This is not a personal attack by any means, but rather think about it this way: Because your trading experience involves people who have attempted extremely high-value scams, over thousands (or more) of dollars, and because it involves trades and purchases of tens of thousands of dollars at once, your view is skewed towards protecting MOTL in deals of such a large values, whereas the reality is that the vast majority of deals on MOTL are likely more somewhere in between $10 and $250.

---

quote:

---

:Originally posted by Hooskdaddy:
Jaz
Mine do the same thing sometimes too, Ive complained about it as well but it still happens depending on the person delivering it id imagine.

---

Yet he just expected the box full of valuables to be at his door when he returned and takes zero responsibility but would be willing to send him 2 (up from 1 originally offered) because he feels bad.

quote:

---

:Originally posted by Hooskdaddy:
Originally posted by Hooskdaddy:sending the volc would be out of the goodness of my heart

---

I do commend him for doing this since the mods ruled that he was not at fault (although how he's not at fault I'm baffled by).

After some thinking and seeing Inca's comment about Hooskdaddys character,

quote:

---

Originally posted by inca911:
Correct that Ryusei was responsible as alternate arrangements were not agreed upon, and correct that Hoosk did the right thing anyway. Says a lot about the quality of his character, and of the members on this site in general!

---

Does someones history go into making decisions on a BTA? I keep reading that if someone tries to pull this more then once no one will deal with them, but by the letter of MOTL law if people do keep trading with them and they say, "Never received, didn't get it no matter what the DC says. Show me the signiture!" Are they still good to trade since a signiture was not required because I only insured for $50 on my trade? Sure I guess I can try to get the insurance on my cards paid back but is that really the point?

Hooskdaddy may well be telling the truth, but this is his 4th BTA since Dec of 2007 and in that time he has less then 70 refs. 4 BTA's in fewer then say 100 deals is pretty high. One of the BTA's was kinda bogus, but the 3 others for ripping, (including this one which I believe the outcome was egregious, but MOTL rules are MOTL rules), all seemed fair. In this case he wasn't home when the item got delivered. In another BTA he never received emails to his email address (but his paypal payment to same address came through just fine). In another he had a "friend" drop his trade in the mail going overseas but his friend decided to hang onto the package for a week before sending the package (the second package since the first was "lost"). It's a good read, http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004828.html He even said this,

quote:

---

:Originally posted by Hooskdaddy:
You foreigners dont get that its really expensive to register things to you guys.

---